Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

The genetics of educational attainment

A recently announced paper reports the results of an
enormous genome-wide association study for educational attainment. The authors
found 74 regions of the genome where there are common variants that show
statistically significant association with this trait. Here are my thoughts on
what this study found, what it didn’t find and what those positive and negative
results might mean.

First, it was a huge effort by a lot of people who
should be congratulated for working together to carry out this analysis on such
a huge scale. It is an interesting question and a worthwhile effort, in my
view. The trait they measure, time spent in education, is an important one
and has been shown to be moderately heritable. One large study estimated the
heritability at ~40%, meaning of the variance in this trait, in the sample studied, around that much
was found to be attributable to genetic differences between people. (For
reasons I can’t figure out, the current study cites that paper, but gives a
figure of “at least 20%” for the heritability). There is also strong evidence that
“Educational attainment is moderately correlated with other heritable
characteristics, including cognitive function and personality traits related to
persistence and self-discipline.” Understanding the
genetics of these traits is highly interesting, if for no other reason than
that it can help us understand some of the major differences in human
experience.

The authors of the current study have clearly found
what look like some real associations between common genetic variants and
educational attainment. First, they replicate quite well across their different
samples. Second, the variants are in a highly non-random set of genes – they
are enriched for genes expressed in the brain during fetal development and for
genes that encode proteins involved in neurodevelopment processes like neuronal
differentiation, cell migration and axonal guidance – all the processes that
are involved in putting the brain together! So, we can conclude that differences
in how the brain develops can have some effect on intelligence or other traits
(like drive) that contribute to variation in educational attainment. Of course,
that doesn't sound surprising really when you say it like that – no more than
the finding that common variants in skeletal growth genes influence height. But
it didn't have to turn out that way.

What is more interesting to me is what they did not
find. The 74 variants they find have tiny individual effects on the trait (even
by GWAS standards) and collectively explain only 3% of the genetic variance in
the trait. Their study was certainly well enough powered to detect common
variants with even vary small effect sizes – the fact that they did not find
any more of them is therefore strong evidence that they do not exist.

So, instead of focusing on the variants they did find,
one might instead ask what is contributing the other 97% of the genetic
variance in this trait?

There are a few possible explanations:

1. There may exist many, many more common DNA variants
that contribute to variation in this trait across the population, but if this
is true, each of these must have an even smaller effect than the SNPs they have
already found (approaching negligible, in fact). It would take enormous samples
to find more of them and, given the diminishing returns in terms of effect
sizes, they would likely explain only a very small additional percentage of the
variance, even if many of them are found.

(Note that methods like Genomic Complex Trait Analysis
have been used to try and estimate how much of the variance in educational
attainment is tagged by common variants across the whole population, even
though we may not yet be able to identify them. Davies et al estimated this at
21%).

For what it’s worth, I am generally skeptical that
this method can produce precise estimates, given the tiny signals it relies on.
I am even more skeptical of the interpretation of such results, which is based
on the assumption that because common variants can be used to index genetic
relatedness across a sample, that any association between this index and
phenotypic relatedness must be caused by the actions of those common variants
and that it can indicate how many common variants must be involved. In fact
this method tells us nothing about the number or allelic frequency of the
causal variants involved.)

2. Their statistical methodology may have missed
common variants that have effects only in specific combinations (rather than
their individual effects simply being summed). This is a general potential
problem with GWAS methodology. However, with a sample size like the one they
have, even variants that do have such epistatic interactions would still be
likely to show some non-zero individual effect on average. See here for more on
"what GWAS signals mean".

3. The most likely explanation to me is that the
genetic variants that make by far the biggest contribution to this trait are
not common across the population, but rare. It would, in fact, be astonishing
if rare mutations did not make an important contribution to the traits
underlying educational achievement, especially intelligence. Generally
speaking, rare mutations have bigger effects than common ones, we all carry
many rare mutations, and intelligence is exactly the kind of trait that may be
affected by many of them, either individually or in aggregate.

This has profound implications for how we think about
the genetics of intelligence. What it means is that maybe there are no genes
"for intelligence" - that is, genetic differences that explain most
of the variance in intelligence across
the whole population. Instead, our intelligence may be affected much more
by the unique profile of rare mutations that we each carry.

These could be mutations in genes like those found in
this GWAS study – ones that directly control processes of neural development or
other aspects of how the brain functions. But there also could be a more
general effect of overall mutational load, which might reduce the robustness of
the processes of neural development. Under this model, intelligence may be not
so much a specific trait, reflecting some particular brain processes, but
rather a general fitness indicator. We may think of intelligence like we think
of “performance” of a car or an aircraft – as relying not just on specific
components but also, maybe even more so, on how they are all put together.

Note also that nonlinear epistatic interactions are
highly likely between the rare variants we each carry – see here for more on
that and why it places serious limits on how much we will ever be able to
predict intelligence.

So, overall, I think one of the strongest conclusions
from this study is the one they do not draw – that most of the genetic variation in
this trait (the unaccounted for 97%!) is probably NOT due to common variation
but most likely to the profile of rare mutations that we each carry.

Finally, given how easily and widely this kind of stuff is misinterpreted, and how readily people ascribe viewpoints to people discussing it that they do not actually hold, it may be wise to issue a few disclaimers:

- saying a trait is partly heritable is not the same as implying it is entirely genetically determined

- there are clearly also important sociocultural factors affecting educational attainment

- there may also be important interactions between genetics and sociocultural factors

- showing some genetic influences on a complex trait is not the same as "reducing it" to the actions of a few genes (we are interested here in how variation in genes leads to variation in the trait; not how a trait like human intelligence comes about in the first place)

- the findings described here will be of no practical use in screening people or predicting their academic success

Comments

Of course, they are finding the things they are looking for: individual genes. Se are sill to develop metodologías for cooperativa effectsbthat are non additive. But we are not very efficient understanding systems made of large numbers of interacting entities even if the individual interacting are simple themselves, this is why we need computers, then we can do what we can do best: find patterns un the results.

This is a great article (not misrepresenting the results to support your prior beliefs). You say that you believe rare mutations explain most of the heritability of intelligence rather than common genes. What studies support this idea (other than the current study only explaining ~3% of the variance)?

Thanks for your comment and your question. Here are some of the reasons why I think rare variants MUST be involved in intelligence, (or at least why that should be a default hypothesis):

1. Rare variants in hundreds of known genes cause intellectual disability2. It stands to reason that less severe variants in the same genes (or others) may cause smaller decrements in intelligence – after all, this is exactly what the common variants model proposes3. Rare mutations are generally known to have larger phenotypic effects than common variants4. We all carry hundreds of rare mutations affecting proteins 5. It is both statistically unlikely and biologically implausible that none of these should affect intelligence, given it is such a high-level property of the nervous system and thus dependent on so many lower-level components6. There is thus a strong a priori expectation that rare mutations should contribute to this trait in individuals and to variance in the trait across the population (just different ones in different people)7. GWAS are not just exploratory but also a test of the over-arching hypothesis that common variation explains phenotypic variance8. Negative results from well-powered studies should not therefore lead to default interpretation that trait must be explained by many more common variants of even smaller effect! 9. Given the a priori expectation of involvement of rare variants, the hypothesis that they explain the missing heritability is a more parsimonious default position

In Rietveld et al. 2013 it was estimated that common variants explain ~20% of phenotypic variability (section 2b in the supplement). So that would cap every other genetic effect to a maximum of ~20% (as the total heritability is estimated at ~40%). Rare variants do play a role in educational attainment (unpublished) but it is a smaller or comparable role when compared to common variants.

Great summary of the work (as usual)!However, I think you may have missed a fourth explanation which appears to be overlooked by most authors in this field: feedback amplifying small genetic differences and inflating heritability estimates. This (admittedly old) paper explains the phenomenon quite nicely: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381833

Would be interesting to know if their model has received any criticism?

Thanks, I will read that with interest. In general, there is certainly likely to be a strong cultural amplification of initial genetic differences, rather than a leveling out of them. This happens as people choose their own environments or get selected for different treatment based on their talents and aptitudes. That's very obvious for athletic or musical talent (the most talented get the most training) but is also almost inevitably involved in education.

If GWAS is not the way forward for finding the genetic background of major cognitive traits, then what is? Theory indicates that it should mostly be common variants with additive effects, and if anything it provided a clear way forward.

Well, if the the traits involved are caused by profiles of rare mutations, then finding these may prove very difficult. It would require very large sample sizes of whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing. But if the mutations involved are very rare and the profiles essentially unique, it may never be possible to find all the variants explaining the heritability. If individual variants are not identifiable, it might still be possible to estimate or model the genetic load in aggregate and see how that correlates with educational outcomes or IQ. Of course, you'd have to ask - why would you want to do that? Just to understand the genetic architecture of the trait (a perfectly worthwhile goal) or for some practical purpose (as in predicting people's intelligence or pre-screening for it somehow, which seems both much more difficult and ethically dubious http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/05/the-new-eugenics-same-as-old-eugenics.html)

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can molecular memories of our ancestors’
experiences affect our own behaviour and physiology? That idea has certainly
grabbed hold of the public imagination, under the banner of the seemingly
ubiquitous buzzword “epigenetics”. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is
the idea that a person’s experiences can somehow mark their genomes in ways
that are passed on to their children and grandchildren. Those marks on the
genome are then thought to influence gene expression and affect the behaviour
and physiology of people who inherit them. The way this notion is referred to – both in
popular pieces and in the scientific literature – you’d be forgiven for
thinking it is an established fact in humans, based on mountains of consistent,
compelling evidence. In fact, the opposite is true – it is based on the
flimsiest of evidence from a very small number of studies with very small
sample sizes and serious methodological flaws. [Note that there is, by contrast,
very good evidence for this kind…

I recently wrote a blogpost examining the
supposed evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TGEI) in
humans. This focused specifically on a set of studies commonly cited as
convincingly demonstrating the phenomenon whereby the experiences of one
generation can have effects that are transmitted, through non-genetic means, to
their offspring, and, more importantly, even to their grandchildren. Having
examined what I considered to be the most prominent papers making these claims,
I concluded that they do not in fact provide any evidence supporting that idea,
as they are riddled with fatal methodological flaws. While the scope of that piece was limited
to studies in humans, I have also previously considered animal studies making
similar claims, which suffer from similar methodological flaws (here and here).
My overall conclusion is that there is effectively no evidence for TGEI in
humans (contrary to widespread belief) and very little in mammals more
generally (with one very…

GWAS (genome-wide association studies) for
psychiatric illnesses may be about to become a victim of their own success. The
idea behind these studies is that common genetic variation – ancient mutations
that segregate in the population – may partly underlie the high heritability of
common psychiatric and neurological disorders, such as schizophrenia, autism,
epilepsy, ADHD, depression, and so on. The accumulating evidence from over ten
years of GWAS strongly supports that idea, with many hundreds of such risk
variants now having been identified. The problem is it’s not at all clear what
to do with that information. GWAS are a method to carry out a kind of
genetic epidemiology, based on a simple premise – if a particular genetic
variant at some position in the genome (say an “A” base, as opposed to a “T” at position 236,456 on chromosome 9) – is associated with an increased risk
of some condition, then the frequency of the “A” version should be higher in
people with the condition than pe…